1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 29,600,000 from the Defendant for woodworks among the road confirmation and packaging works for Chungcheong-gun B (hereinafter “instant construction works”) and completed the said construction works on December 27, 2014.

(No dispute, No. 1).

The Defendant paid part of the construction cost of this case to the Plaintiff as follows:

The amount paid by the No. 1 of the date of payment (the original evidence number) No. 7-14 October 14, 2014 7-2 7-2 7-34 November 23, 2015 7-4 20,000 of the 7-14. 5,000,000 on September 5, 2014 7-14. 6,000,000 on September 17, 2014 7-34, 2015 7-4 Total 20,400,000 / [based on recognition] No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion completed the instant construction project that the Defendant received from the Defendant.

The Defendant paid only KRW 20,400,000 out of KRW 29,600,000 to the Plaintiff and did not pay the remainder of KRW 9.2 million. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay that amount.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff settled on behalf of the Plaintiff all material costs, personnel expenses, etc. to be borne by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The key issue is whether the Defendant paid the unpaid construction cost of KRW 9.2 million, excluding the part of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, among the construction cost of this case. The key issue is to determine whether the Defendant settled the remainder of the construction cost of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is the Youngdong snow industry, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ydongdong snow industry”) as indicated in the following table:

(2) On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the price for materials related to the instant project. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of value-added tax (cost 1,980,600, 198,060 198,060 2,178,660 2-2, and 320 on November 17, 2014, the rent for temporary materials 2,50,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2-4,53 on November 18, 2014,